Scientific Certification of the Works Published by ECF

Scientific Certification of the Works Published by ECF

Synthesis

Every article published by ECF was accepted for publication by no less than two qualified reviewers as a result of a process of anonymous reviewing (double-blind peer review). The Journal’s/Series’ Scientific Director guarantees the proper execution of the peer review process for every article published in the Journal/Series. The evaluation is conducted in accordance with the following criteria:

Revision policies for the different sections:

Complete volume/issue: subject to peer review

Monographs | essays | articles: subject to peer review

Introductions, prefaces: no peer review

Reviews: no peer review

Editorials: no peer review

Full text

1

ECF is the Press of Ca’ Foscari University. It has a scientific board made up of four representatives –
one for each of the four main disciplinary areas (humanities, languages, economics and sciences) to
which the eight departments of the University refer to.

2

The Board receives, evaluates and approves every proposal of a new Journal/Series on the basis of the following criteria:

Journal/Series shall have a director and a scientific board of renowned scholars. ECF recommends that the scholars sitting in scientific boards are chosen among researchers and teachers working in Universities other than Ca’ Foscari, and preferentially in foreign institutions.

The Journal/Series shall have character of novelty as far as the subject matter, the approach to research and methodology are concerned.

The Journal/Series shall include an editorial Board that shall supervise the peer review process
and assist ECF in coordinating the editorial flow, in accordance with ECF’s editorial criteria
and respecting the Journal’s/Series’ periodicity.

3

ECF’s editorial director shall operate in order to ensure that the aforementioned fundamental criteria
are respected. In particular, ECF’s Presidency and Management Board have supervising and veto power over
the decisions taken by the Journal’s/Series’ scientific board, whenever serious shortcomings in the
Journal’s/Series’ management should come to light.

4

ECF provides access to a peer review online platform. Double-blind peer review, by independent scholars
who are not part of the Journal’s/Series’ scientific board, is ECF’s recommended standard in terms of
scientific evaluation.

5

ECF provides its users with full and timely support in using the platform.

6

A Journal’s/Series’ Scientific Director is autonomous and independent in conducting call-for-papers,
choosing reviewers and evaluating all texts, in full respect of ECF’s policy and general rules.

7

The Scientific Board shall identify the reviewers. Reviewers shall have an appropriate curriculum and a
significant number of publications, preferably submitted to quality control procedures. ECF recommends
not to choose reviewers among the staff of the University to which the Journal/Series is affiliated.

8

The Journal/Series has a dedicated profile on the online peer review platform. The Journal’s/Series’
Scientific Director manages its profile and is responsible for its content.

9

Every article is anonymously uploaded on the platform by its Author. Following this, the
Journal’s/Series’ Scientific Director entrusts it to two Reviewers. During the review process the Author
and the Reviewers cannot come in contact with each other, not even indirectly.

10

It is up to the Reviewer to determine if the document is:

‘Accepted’

‘Rejected’.

11

If the document is ‘accepted’, the Reviewer shall specify if it is:

‘Fully accepted’

‘Accepted with minor or extensive revision’.

12

Reviewers shall explain their decision by filling an evaluation sheet, where they shall evaluate the
Article’s: ‘Significance’, ‘Originality, new insights’, ‘Research methods’, ‘Adequacy of citations and
accuracy of references’, ‘Presentation and quality of argumentation’, and ‘Writing style and grammar’.
Reviewers will evaluate each of these fields on a five level scale:

‘Poor’

‘Improvable’

‘Average’

‘Good’

‘Excellent’

For each of these judgments an extended comment is requested.

13

The negative opinion of even one of the two Reviewers will automatically mark the article as ‘rejected’
by the evaluating system. In this case, the Scientific Director can submit the document to a third
Reviewer.

14

If Reviewers requested the article to be modified, the Author shall submit a second draft of the paper.
This second draft will be accepted only in case of a positive response from the Scientific Director.

15

After the end of the peer review process ECF will verify the document’s compliance with the
editorial guidelines once again and, if necessary, will ask the Scientific Director or the Editorial Board to
intervene in order to standardise the document. After this last step, ECF’s copy editors will start the
publication process for the accepted documents.

16

The whole reviewing process is tracked, memorised and archived on the platform’s database, which is
managed by Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. Authors and Reviewers will still have access to the archive
linked to their respective profiles, where they will find records of every activity they performed.